Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

plus.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#51

Post by Xuzz »

rmc wrote: post #11
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #2

Mozilla is putting a lot of resources; including some of their best coders, into advancing mobile. I don't see the same on Google's side. Am I wrong?

They have sponsored and released the only modern smartphone OS that isn't locked down to one company like iOS. They (through Android) are to Apple, what OpenOffice/LibreOffice is to MS Office. They are the reason Apple don't own smartphone. With Google/Android what would be the Apple competitor? Blackberry? OpenMoko?!

Maybe the only popular one, but certainly not the only one. In fact, only webOS is (was, I guess) locked to a single company. Windows Phone isn't open source, but there are at least four hardware manufacturers. Nokia's MeeGo is open source (and quite good on my Nokia N9). And, soon, webOS will be too. So, while Android is a more open mobile OS, it certainly isn't the only one.

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#52

Post by Xuzz »

lukeschlather wrote: post #48
cpeterso wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] According to this HTML5 compliance test, the ICS browser scores 230 (out of 450), while Chrome 15 desktop browser scores 342. Why would these browsers have such distant scores if they shared the same browser core? For comparison, the Firefox 8 desktop browser scores 314 and the Firefox 8 mobile browser scores 314. http://www.html5test.com/results-mobile.html

There are a variety of options that are disabled on the mobile build to save memory and cpu. It's the same core, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles enabled for a variety of reasons.

It's not Chrome. It's based on WebKit, like Chrome, yes. But it's not Chrome. (Easy way to check: note that the icon says "Browser", not "Chrome", and it isn't the Chrome icon.)

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#53

Post by Xuzz »

redthrowaway wrote: post #38
hub_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OS upgrades that a lot of Android users don't get. If I want to get an up to date browser on my Nexus One, I have to use Firefox... as Google said they no longer support the phone. iOS users are in the same boat, but Apple has been providing much more support to older devices.

To be perfectly honest, Apple pushing the latest iOS versions to older devices is not really a good thing. iOS 5 is a dog on my 3GS.

Weird, my 3GS seems no different on iOS 5 vs iOS 4. At worst, it's nothing like the iOS 4 performance on the iPhone 3G. This video apparently shows the 3GS being faster than iPhone 4 (believable, actually, if you consider the quadrupling of pixels on the iPhone 4 from the 3GS): http://techuncover.com/blog/tag/iphone-3gs-is-faster-on-ios-...

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#54

Post by hub_ »

lukeschlather wrote: post #48
cpeterso wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] According to this HTML5 compliance test, the ICS browser scores 230 (out of 450), while Chrome 15 desktop browser scores 342. Why would these browsers have such distant scores if they shared the same browser core? For comparison, the Firefox 8 desktop browser scores 314 and the Firefox 8 mobile browser scores 314. http://www.html5test.com/results-mobile.html

There are a variety of options that are disabled on the mobile build to save memory and cpu. It's the same core, it just doesn't have all the bells and whistles enabled for a variety of reasons.

That core is called WebKit.

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#55

Post by redthrowaway »

Xuzz wrote: post #53
redthrowaway wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be perfectly honest, Apple pushing the latest iOS versions to older devices is not really a good thing. iOS 5 is a dog on my 3GS.

Weird, my 3GS seems no different on iOS 5 vs iOS 4. At worst, it's nothing like the iOS 4 performance on the iPhone 3G. This video apparently shows the 3GS being faster than iPhone 4 (believable, actually, if you consider the quadrupling of pixels on the iPhone 4 from the 3GS): http://techuncover.com/blog/tag/iphone-3gs-is-faster-on-ios-...

It's entirely possible that ios's shitty performance is due to me rescuing it from brick state via oven, but I don't really buy it. The phone works perfectly, except that it's very slow and experiences the occasional hang. It's. Ertainly nowhere near as smooth as my buddy's 4s. I don't expect it to be, but I do expect it to unlock without a 4 second lag.

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#56

Post by tomjen3 »

azakai wrote: post #37
nextparadigms wrote: post #13

I would've thought this was obvious. Google didn't just pay $300 to stop Firefox from using Bing, although I'm sure that played a big role, too, but I believe the reason Mozilla got $300 million was because they knew how to negotiate the price up. I don't think Mozilla really wanted to change to Bing. Also, Google is a lot better off having an ally in Mozilla. Not so much because they don't want Bing to get a lot of…

> I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. If you're suggesting that Mozilla would do something bad for the web for money, then I think you couldn't be more wrong. Mozilla is a nonprofit exactly for this reason. (Worth noting that the for-profit Opera opposes Native Client too - it isn't just nonprofits that have values.)

Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript.

Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#57

Post by prodigal_erik »

tomjen3 wrote: post #56
azakai wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn't be surprised if for those $300 million they also got Mozilla to accept using Native Client in Firefox later on. If you're suggesting that Mozilla would do something bad for the web for money, then I think you couldn't be more wrong. Mozilla is a nonprofit exactly for this reason. (Worth noting that the for-profit Opera opposes Native Client too - it isn't just nonprofits that have values.)

Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript. Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.

That future is better known as client/server, and it's a huge step backwards. There was only one client that worked at all, it was terrible, and you couldn't fix it. No, every time an author imposes fixed client behavior rather than writing publically addressible content which can be rendered and repurposed in many ways, the world-wide web dies a little more.

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#58

Post by tomjen3 »

prodigal_erik wrote: post #57
tomjen3 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that sarcasm? Native client is one of the best things that will ever happen to the web since jQuery made it possible to write cross-browser javascript. Imagine how much easier it will be in the future when ever very intensive programs can be written, and run, on the web.

That future is better known as client/server, and it's a huge step backwards. There was only one client that worked at all, it was terrible, and you couldn't fix it. No, every time an author imposes fixed client behavior rather than writing publically addressible content which can be rendered and repurposed in many ways, the world-wide web dies a little more.

I seem to be somewhat dense today, do you mind explaining to me what harm will come if the next IDE to a language I use is implemented in native client and runs in a browser and wouldn't come if it was written in java and ran on my desktop? (and therefore was only available when my laptop was, etc) or for that matter the photoshop or some computer game.

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#59

Post by DanBC »

> * "It's very simple: the primary goal of Chrome is to make the web advance as much and as quickly as possible."*

This is actually a bit frustrating. There's a bunch of people writing sub-optimal web-pages; not understanding the features or the security; and then there's a bunch of browser engineers trying to keep up.

Security still needs huge amounts of research and energy to progress beyond the broken model (username and pass everywhere / single weak social media login for everything) to something that most users can cope with.

I sound like a luddite, but I miss the days when you could do a Google search for something and the first page would be people who knew a lot about that subject, and who'd written some great text about it, and given it a bit of markup.

Honestly, ideal web pages for me are those but with CSS.

A lot of the web now feels like it's been designed by people who grew up with Geocities and and .

Re: We and Mozilla are working together to make the web awesome

#60

Post by ippisl »

drhowarddrfine wrote: post #5

Google has said from the beginning that the purpose of Chrome was to move the web forward, not compete with other browsers, and I had forgotten that.

Actions speak louder than words. Brendan Eich, Mozilla's CTO , which has some authority around issues concerning the open web , think Native client and Dart are bad for the open web[1].

Also one small way to improve the search experience, is easy search in multiple search engines. Firefox's search box is one way of doing so, But it has been removed in chrome. Does it really improve the web ?

Does limiting the power of adblocking relative to firefox for example , really improves the web ?

Do giving better/faster experience for youtube and google(no data but few anecdotes from me and friends) , for chrome users is improving the open web ?

And if we talk about moving the web forward , privacy is one of the biggest issues the web currently has. privacy from big companies , privacy from advertisers , privacy from other people doing searches on you and privacy from being needed to show your real name publicly on the web.

Privacy is probably much more important than technical issues like current javascript speed.

Does google really help "move the web forward" on the issue of privacy ?

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2983430

Post reply on HN